NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS - Page 41

chris08876 · #**801** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 8:13 PM**

Seeing how tall 432 Park ave is, it really gives a good idea of the height that we are dealing with. This will dominate the area, and being slightly bulky, will really stand out. I think the design is okay. The top has a little too much going on, but assuming that this isn't the final design, that could always change.

Busy Bee · #**802** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 8:52 PM**

I'm not a height foamer and rarely if ever participate in the ubiquitous juvenile squabbling regarding such that goes on here at SSP. That being said, THIS TOWER SHOULD BE TALLER! Not for the dick measuring but because the design BEGS for it. Everybody blur you eyes and try to imagine if the crystalline cornucopia like top, which currently looks forced down and compressed, instead stretched upward by about 300-500 feet. I can envision it, and it takes an impressive tower and makes it epically stunning. It could be the awe inspiring mountain peak that midtown needs.

sparkling · #**803** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/09/skyline-view-one-vanderbilt.html

Yummy from YIMBY NY.............................

These renderings make the building looks smaller than the ESB. The latter is so prominently featured it almost feels like the SL Green guys were afraid of some sort of backlash ala Anthony Malkin & Co vs 15 Penn.

chris08876 · #**804** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 9:51 PM**

Anthony Malkin needs to wake up and realize that the city is moving on to bigger and better things. He probably says FML when he see's 432 Park Ave every day. Wait until Nordstrom rises. We can't live in the past is my point.

sparkling · #**805** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 9:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Anthony Malkin needs to wake up and realize that the city is moving on to bigger and better things. He probably says FML when he see's 432 Park Ave every day. Wait until Nordstrom rises. We can't live in the past is my point.

I agree with you, just thought these renderings were a bit weird. You can pay respect to ESB without having to bend over that much. Or maybe I simply misunderstood SL Green's intentions, maybe they just thought these vantage points make their building look very awesome

chris08876 · #**806** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 10:33 PM**

A design like this: 820 2nd Ave, in Seattle

Would be perfect here.

Credit: One Vanderbilt, image by KPF/SL Green ; http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/09/skyline-view-one-vanderbilt.html

While this is okay, some slight tweaking of the top, maybe similar to the rendering above, and it would be perfect.

Onn · #**807** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 11:12 PM**

I don't know why everyone keeps complaining about the top? All I see is a normal top. It looks like a fractured gem in a rock that's been broken open. I think that's pretty cool.

NYguy · #**808** Posted **Sep 19, 2014, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

I don't know why everyone keeps complaining about the top? All I see is a normal top. It looks like a fractured gem in a rock that's been broken open. I think that's pretty cool.

It's not a normal top. It's an awkward shaping, and I've never been a fan of it. If the proportions were worked on it would probably look better. The building is too massive for that clumsily thrown together top. The final shaft (setback) doesn't go with the tower. Lose it, and it begins to come together more.

Onn · #**809** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

It's not a normal top. It's an awkward shaping, and I've never been a fan of it. If the proportions were worked on it would probably look better. The building is too massive for that clumsily thrown together top. The final shaft (setback) doesn't go with the tower. Lose it, and it begins to come together more.

I don't know where you got the idea that it was a clumsy top. You don't think the architect did that intentionally and knows what they're doing? It astonishes me that people never seem to believe in the architect's vision on paper.

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/5256eadff92ea102ad01f2ae/onevanderbilt1.jpg

NYguy · #**810** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 1:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

I don't know where you got the idea that it was a clumsy top. You don't think the architect did that intentionally and knows what they're doing?
It astonishes me that people never seem to believe in the architect's vision on paper.

I don't have to "believe" in the architect's vision. I trust my own vision, and it tells me that design is a clunky mess. There's no cohesiveness with the rest of the building. It basically looks
like someone giving the skyline a giant finger. They can do so much better. This development deserves so much better.

It's funny, but at a time when we will soon start watching the rise of a glorious skyscraper that was shorted due to the design of the last 200 ft,
there's no Amanda Burden around to throw bricks at this one.

Of course, it wasn't planned to be that way, but that's the way it is now.

Who's worthy of that air space now Ms. Burden?

Imagine if the tower sloped up naturally into a defined spire, without those awkward setbacks...

JayPro · #**811** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 3:30 PM**

I actually like it like this the more I study it.
It's a departure from what most skyscraper enthusiast would probably consider normal, as it seems to cause in some a disruption in visual continuity.
I mean...Who suggested that vertical setbacks has to follow a certain empirical rule...or for that matter even subjective logic?

Perklol · #**812** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 3:43 PM**

I agree, where is the former socialite now?

JMGarcia · #**813** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 4:57 PM**

To me, it looks better from some sides than others. The fact that it's asymmetrical is bound to be very bothersome to a lot of people. People like symmetry usually. Add to that that it's a somewhat brutal asymmetry and I can understand the complaints.

mrnyc · #**814** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 5:20 PM**

^ same for me. better in some angles, less so in others. the bottom render is cool, but the one above it is eh.

JayPro · #**815** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 5:47 PM**

@JMGarcia;

While I appreciate the degree of grievance registered here so far against this tower's current (for now?) form, I don't quite understand the remonstration against Brutalism in a city that has put up at least one vaunted 808' icon to École de le Corbusier, i.e. PanAm.
I think we've been overindulged with the "thin is in" mantra to the point that a tower that takes it and knocks it on its ass is looked at with IMO more than a bit of distaste.

King DenCity · #**816** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 11:02 PM**

Personally I think the top render compliments the surrounding cityscape better than the bottom one. I think it looks great and if it sloped anymore it will look out of place and will be an eyesore on the skyline. Just my $0.02

JayPro · #**817** Posted **Sep 20, 2014, 11:31 PM**

Howzzit grabbin' y'all if we look at this as the man child of Willis Tower and the Fortress of Solitude?

Submariner · #**818** Posted **Sep 21, 2014, 11:41 PM**

These renderings make One Vanderbilt look far more "chunky" than the last renderings did. If you look at the diagram, for example, it has a certain sleekness these new massings lack.

Hopefully, the final product looks like the previous renders, as opposed to the new ones.

pico44 · #**819** Posted **Sep 22, 2014, 10:49 AM**

I hate it so much. Probably to the point of being a little irrational about it. I'd rather they put a parking lot there than build this tower as currently designed. It's. Just. So. Ugly.

Onn · #**820** Posted **Sep 22, 2014, 12:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

I hate it so much. Probably to the point of being a little irrational about it. I'd rather they put a parking lot there than build this tower as currently designed. It's. Just. So. Ugly.

What have you been smoking? It's a brilliant building!